One of the nation's leading stem cell researchers announced last week
that he was leaving the University of California, San Francisco -- one
of the premier biomedical research centers in the country -- for the
University of Cambridge in England. Part of the reason is that the
British regulatory environment for stem cell research is far more
permissive than U.S. regulations are likely to be, and is certainly more
so than the current U.S. ban on federal funding for such research.
The British might be justified in feeling that it's just desserts for
U.S. researchers to be lured to the UK, given the flow of academics over
the last 20 years mostly in the opposite direction. What does this
reverse brain drain tell us about stem cell research in the United
States, as a decision from the Bush administration draws near?
America the strict?
U.S. restrictions ban any federal funding for research that harms or
destroys human embryos -- rules that have been in place since the early
1980s. However, just prior to the 2000 election, the Clinton
administration issued an order that would allow federal funding of stem
cell research so long as the stem cells were harvested from embryos
using private funds. That policy was never enacted and President Bush
now is under pressure to decide whether the government will fund
embryonic stem cell research and, if so, with what restrictions. Some
observers predict that, if research is allowed to proceed, it will be
under very limited conditions, such as using existing collections of
stem cells only.
Whatever the decision, it likely will be not be as permissive as the
UK's. There researchers may use not only embryos left over from in vitro
fertilization, but are allowed to create human embryos, even cloned
embryos and the stem cells they contain, for research purposes. This
so-called therapeutic cloning will become more important as research
progresses. Using stem cells to treat diabetes and spinal cord injury,
or to grow organs for transplant, will require cells that are
immunologically matched to the patient. The easiest, though most
controversial, way to get them is to clone an embryo from the patient,
from which stem cells could be collected. This step likely is years or
even decades down the road, but research toward it would be hampered by
a policy that bans creation of embryos or therapeutic cloning.
The value of central authority
There is no question that the United States is the engine for biomedical
research worldwide, with substantial public resources devoted to both
basic and applied research. But resources can't overcome restrictive
research policies, and scientists will go to more permissive
environments, even if there are fewer resources available.
The UK is able to take a more permissive approach because of a stronger
central authority to monitor and oversee research that involves human
embryos. Unlike in the United States, where such research is by law
pushed into the private sector and largely out of the reach of public
oversight, the UK controls all use and creation of human embryos through
the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA). It is a clear
example of how public funding can serve as a tool to oversee a
controversial technology and prevent its potential misuse.
The irony in all this is hard to ignore. As the U.S. celebrates the
225th anniversary of its freedom from the repression of British colonial
rule, researchers are fleeing what many see as overly puritanical
restrictions from Washington. So from the perspective of stem cell
research, which country most deserves to be called the land of the free
and the home of the brave? Researchers are beginning to vote with their
feet.